Russia attacking Ukraine 2/16?

And now he is massing troops within his own borders which evidently is a threat to the entire world.
Click to expand...

Come on - you think if we forcibly seized Baja California, then massed troops along the Rio Grande while announcing that Mexico had to bow to our will regarding which alliances they did or didn't join lest we invade, that this would just count as peacefully moving troops around within our borders in a non-threatening way?
 
Monahorns said:
I think Putin does think this way. That is what is being reported by people close to the situation who have spent their careers trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Preposterous. I'm not buying it.

Monahorns said:
I agree. But if a transgender says they are afraid of cis-gender straights attacking them, you don't run up to them and hold your fist up like you are about to hit them either.
Click to expand...

No, but you don't let them set the agenda either.

Monahorns said:
Well same can be said for the US Pentagon's comments about why we need to intervene with Ukraine. Plus your example is bad. In your example just like the Ukraine situation it is the US crossing an ocean to intervene in another region. People wouldn't take the US's claims seriously, but they would sure as hell take the threat they posed to the UK seriously. In reality Russia is the UK of your example. In both cases, they have every right to point out the aggressive actions and be concerned
Click to expand...

Lol. Russia is not the UK in the example. Ukraine clearly is. And to be clear, I don't think we should put Ukraine in NATO, but that shouldn't be Russia's decision. Ukraine joining NATO isn't a threat to a civilized Russia not interested in territorial expansion to the west. It's only a threat if Russia attacks Ukraine.

Monahorns said:
You never try to understand what I am saying anyway.
Click to expand...

I do. The problem is that there are some ridiculous assumptions built into your foreign policy philosophy.

Monahorns said:
1) The news about Russia moving around troops was all within their borders. That is a fact. I recognize their is at the least Russian involvement in Donbas in some fashion. I don't defend it
Click to expand...

In this particular controversy, the troops are in Russia's borders. That wasn't the issue that Husker raised with you on this point. And you don't defend Russia's actions in Donbas, but you effectively disregard it.

Monahorns said:
2) I don't assume Russia has the best intentions. I am trying to explain the reality of what is being said by those covering this closely. Both sides have bad intentions. The Russians should leave Ukraine alone. The US and NATO shouldn't have encroached on Russia, like they promised 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

What do you think the US's intentions are? Do you really think the US and NATO are wanting to go full Operation Barbarossa 2.0?

Monahorns said:
Business deals? You are mad they are making business deals? Well, yeah I don't think there is any problem with international trade. That is a good thing. It is the best thing they can do, which is sell goods which keep Europeans warm in the winter. "Either goods and services cross borders or armies do" (bad quote of someone).
Click to expand...

No, I'm not mad that Russia wants to make business is deals. I'm just pointing out your double standard. If the US makes business deals overseas, it's slimy. If Russia does it, it's "free trade."

Monahorns said:
Sounds like you just want to destroy Russia and harm their economy that is already very weak. But no bad intentions there I guess.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. What I'd really like is for Russia to become a free country and an economic, political, and perhaps even military partner with the West against China and radical Islamic regimes. Opportunities are there, but stupid **** like this makes it harder.

Monahorns said:
Who is Putin a threat to? You? The US? Germany? Who?
Click to expand...

It depends on what his long term agenda is.

Monahorns said:
So we spend money and blood on Russia which poses no threat to us just to make sure someone else doesn't do something we don't want? That's bully language. That's drug gang language. That's mafia language. If we don't go beat up everyone we don't like someone else is going to beat someone else up? That's Darth Vader language.
Click to expand...

No. We'd spend money and blood for the right to set our own foreign policy based on reality rather than myths. Again, I wouldn't do it on Ukraine, because it isn't politically viable. However, if we did, we'd be better off than if we wait for Putin to threaten an actual NATO country.

And let's cut the crap. We wouldn't have to fight Russia over Ukraine. If we actually sent a force big enough to defend Ukraine (something like the REFORGER exercises we did during the Cold War), this **** would be over in about ten minutes. Putin isn't going to go war with the United States over Ukraine or to keep it out of NATO.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Preposterous. I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

The way the neoconservative mind works...

Mr. Deez said:
Lol. Russia is not the UK in the example. Ukraine clearly is. And to be clear, I don't think we should put Ukraine in NATO, but that shouldn't be Russia's decision. Ukraine joining NATO isn't a threat to a civilized Russia not interested in territorial expansion to the west. It's only a threat if Russia attacks Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Russia fits the example much better though. Which is why the example is bad.

I agree that Russia shouldn't get to decide and that Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO (there is a list of conditions they are not close to meeting).

But talk about bad assumptions, you think Russia is initiating expansion? Russia intervened in Donbas AFTER they felt threatened not before and after Ukraine passed discriminatory laws against Russian speakers there. Obviously they annexed Crimea and intervened in Donbas but we have to be straight on the sequence of events.

Mr. Deez said:
I do. The problem is that there are some ridiculous assumptions built into your foreign policy philosophy.
Click to expand...

My assumptions are that the US shouldn't be initiate military force or becone entangled in international affairs. I prefer, prudent, to describe my assumptions.

Mr. Deez said:
In this particular controversy, the troops are in Russia's borders. That wasn't the issue that Husker raised with you on this point. And you don't defend Russia's actions in Donbas, but you effectively disregard it.
Click to expand...

I thought it was. That is the issue of the whole discussion. I don't disregard either. My emphasis is to try to understand WHY they do what they do. Any good negotiation or policy has to start with understanding or it will lead to worse results. Should Russia leave Ukraine alone completely including advisors or mercenaries in Donbas? Yes. Absolutely. Should Ukraine treat their Russian speakers in Donbas fairly. Yes. Absolutely. Are US actions encouraging any of that? No.

Mr. Deez said:
What do you think the US's intentions are? Do you really think the US and NATO are wanting to go full Operation Barbarossa 2.0?
Click to expand...

I don't think the US wants to take over Russia. My issue is trying to make sure US actions are based on understanding the other side's interests. Honestly, I am not sure what the US's real interests in Ukraine are. The US didn't help Ukrainians out at all during the Holodomor, when mass murder was happening. Why are we intervening now? Obviously there is more opportunity for the Pentagon and the Bureaucratic State to make more crony deals with Ukraine if they hold influence over their government. Think the whole Biden/Burisma thing. That is the only thing I can think of, politically connected elites making money off of corruption. Kind of like they are doing in the US. I don't think Americans should support that type of action.

Mr. Deez said:
No, I'm not mad that Russia wants to make business is deals. I'm just pointing out your double standard. If the US makes business deals overseas, it's slimy. If Russia does it, it's "free trade."
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are arguing against someone else. I support free trade all over the world by every country. I don't like the mercantilism of Gazprom, but they should be able to sell natural gas to their neighbors. I don't think business deals on the US side are slimy either. We could really help Russian firms do a better job of oil and gas exploration and extraction. The people of the two countries should be working together on that and have at times.

Mr. Deez said:
Absolutely not. What I'd really like is for Russia to become a free country and an economic, political, and perhaps even military partner with the West against China and radical Islamic regimes. Opportunities are there, but stupid **** like this makes it harder.
Click to expand...

I would like that too. I think we should change our foreign policy to take steps to make that happen.

Mr. Deez said:
No. We'd spend money and blood for the right to set our own foreign policy based on reality rather than myths. Again, I wouldn't do it on Ukraine, because it isn't politically viable. However, if we did, we'd be better off than if we wait for Putin to threaten an actual NATO country.
Click to expand...

That begs the question though. What NATO country does Russia have plans to threaten? I don't see that as an issue.

Mr. Deez said:
And let's cut the crap. We wouldn't have to fight Russia over Ukraine. If we actually sent a force big enough to defend Ukraine (something like the REFORGER exercises we did during the Cold War), this **** would be over in about ten minutes. Putin isn't going to go war with the United States over Ukraine or to keep it out of NATO.
Click to expand...

Russia has set out what their red lines are. One is admitting Ukraine into NATO. I think they would try to annex as much of East Ukraine as they could get away with in that case. I don't think Kiev and Western Ukraine would fall. But I could see them fighting for a land bridge to Crimea through Donbas. But only if Ukraine is in NATO or is used for mid-range nuclear missile launchers. Those two things are what this whole kerfluffle is about.
 
Statalyzer said:
Come on - you think if we forcibly seized Baja California, then massed troops along the Rio Grande while announcing that Mexico had to bow to our will regarding which alliances they did or didn't join lest we invade, that this would just count as peacefully moving troops around within our borders in a non-threatening way?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean and what Russia has actually done.

For one, they moved troops to pre-existing bases that are a couple hundred miles from the border. Then they did some military exercises which I think were based on what they normally do. That is different than placing expeditionary forces right at the border and making obvious preparations to invade.

Your example leaves out quite a bit of context too. Mexico has never threatened the US. Ukraine doesn't threaten Russia. For the example to work Mexico would have to be allied with China or something and in talks to join China's new PPTO (Pan Pacific Treaty Organization) with the promise that an attack on Mexico would trigger China attacking the US. If that was the situation and the US military moved troops to bases in San Diego, El Paso and San Antonio no one would consider that a threat against Mexico. They and you would consider it a prudent defensive move.
 
Not sure what to think about the hammer and sickle in the background, but he does a good job of laying out the perspective of the Donetsk defenders. I don't know much about the author of the video other than he is from Austin, Texas and now lives in Donetsk I think, and that he fought against the Ukraine army after the 2014 coup.

 
Biden administration proven wrong about the 2/16 attack. Now says will happen in several days. Let's use 5 to estimate. That makes the next prediction on 2/22. Who wants to take the next bet? I will go on record to say it won't happen. If I am right who is willing to admit the Biden administration is lying about this?
 
I’m just thankful we don’t have a POTUS that mean tweets. About half of Biden’s votes came from that frame of thought.
 
My guess is this is Putin's game plan with regard to Ukraine.

Here's the situation.

1. Today, both Donetsk and Lugansk have announced they are evacuating the non-combat population (women, children, etc.) to Russia.

2. A few days ago, the Duma (Congress) voted overwhelmingly to recognize Donetsk and Lugansk. This is something Russia did not do a few years ago, instead opting for the Minsk agreement.

3. At this point, the Kremlin has not OKed the vote. Putin is still pressing for Minsk to be implemented.

4. There is no way in hell Minsk will be implemented. Ukraine (and the US behind the scenes) will never concede to allowing any kind of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk.

Here's my conclusion.

With the non-combatants evacuated, Russia would have a free hand to inflict massive damage on Ukrainian troops without killing civilians. If Ukraine continues to not honor Minsk, Russia will simply OK the Duma vote and recognize the two provinces as being independent. At that point, Russia can enter the territories without violating Ukraine sovereignty since they would have been invited by sovereign entities. And without civilians in the way, Russia could unleash powerful weapons that they normally couldn't because much of the fighting would occur in urban settings.

This is just my speculation. Probably has some holes, but I think it makes sense strategically from Russia's point of view.
 
I watched some of that video. Putin is on the moral high ground with civilian casualties? He lost me at that point.
 
Musburger1 said:
Censorship was going on way prior to Covid-19.

The Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes

Millionaire Tries to Stop Documentary Claiming to Tell the True Story of Russia’s Missing $230 Million
Click to expand...
If Browder were murdering journalists and having people who were testifying agaisnt him "commit suicide" by "jumping from roofs of buildings" on the reg, that narrative might have some juice. Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead

Putin is the world's richest man on a salary of about $112,000. $200,000,000 net worth in 2017. 5 years later as a Bond villian is he a trillionaire yet? But hey, keep ******* that chicken musburger.
 
You could find a similar list of Clinton critics who've ended up dead. I'm not sure the latter wouldn't be longer.
 
Hilary is done far worse to the United States than has Putin. Putin hasn't come close to destroying our representative democracy. Hilary? She's definitely made quite an impact.
 
Wikileaks, Gucifer (1.0 and 2.0???), Solar Winds, etc. What more do we need to see to be shown that Russia is a hostile force who needs to be cut off from the serious financial world. Cut off their money.
 
OUBubba said:
Wikileaks, Gucifer (1.0 and 2.0???), Solar Winds, etc. What more do we need to see to be shown that Russia is a hostile force who needs to be cut off from the serious financial world. Cut off their money.
Click to expand...
Using the dollar and SWIFT as weapons is why nation after nation is drifting away from the US orbit. Global hegemony isn’t desired.
 
OUBubba said:
We are financially in bed with Xi. We're not in bed with the Russkies.
Click to expand...

That's a critical point. Our financial ties to China currently create dependencies between us. The West as an export market and China's carrying a significant portion of our debt both give us leverage, and vice versa for China.

Russia exports very little to the US and relatively nothing outside of energy resources to the West.

How we deal with Russia should be very different than China.
 
Musburger1 said:
Putin is pretty aggressive. First he attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Then he overthrew Libya and destroyed that country's infrastructure. Then he went into Syria and covertly supported terrorists while stealing oil. And lastly he occupied Afghanistan for 20 years but that one didn't work out to well. And now he is massing troops within his own borders which evidently is a threat to the entire world.
Click to expand...
You're avoiding the question.

Monahorns said:
Anyone who doesn't support forever global war is a Putin apologist
Click to expand...
I only see one country attacking the Ukraine.
OUBubba said:
Wikileaks, Gucifer (1.0 and 2.0???), Solar Winds, etc. What more do we need to see to be shown that Russia is a hostile force who needs to be cut off from the serious financial world. Cut off their money.
Click to expand...
It's a slow Friday. Let's let the boomers (underwater version) do their work today and get this over with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top